We all knew this was coming. I seriously wonder what kind of impact this is going to have on E3. If this lawsuit succeeds, or better/worse yet, becomes a class action lawsuit, devs/pubs will likely be a LOT more careful about showing anything early.

Class action lawsuits in the gaming world are usually stupid, but in this case I agree. This is the kind of thing consumers should never have to accept. Just remember that this will have a wider effect on the industry if it succeeds. Those early trailers for games like Half-Life and Killzone 2 that impressed everyone? Yeah, they would never happen again (which is good in the case of Killzone).

The ultimate solution to this is what we really need to begin with: Consumer protection laws on software.

This concept of 'you open it, you can't return it', and 'you agree to the EULA by opening the box' is complete shit.

Admittedly, I'm probably solidly in dream-land on this, but that would be one thing that'd keep some games from being released as complete shit. Of course, piracy will be the reason cited as while this'll never happen.

"So what" because it has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Maybe you should have a look at what this case is actually about, which is showing off a "demo" that it turns out has no relation to the game that is released, hyping up features that would never see the light of day?

This lawsuit is stupid and should be thrown out. Colonial Marines sucked bigtime...so what. Its not the first game to do so nor the last one. The same goes for movies, TV, books, or music.

Advertisements(and E3 is a giant advertisement)for Books,TV,Movies and Music pretty much always contain footage that appear in the end product,whether you like that end product is another thing entirely,the producers have to make these products look good with the content they have....the end if you like or not is entirely down to the viewer/listener/reader

The game being shit is not really the issue..okay its why people are complaining..but its the fact that the game was seemingly not shit when the game was showed at E3 2012

People saw the footage,got excited for the game bought the game and found out the footage and the game were two totally different things

This isn't just Video gaming law,its everything in advertising

This is like for the last 20 or so years every commercial for a Video Game that shows cutscenes has to have a small disclaimer saying not actual gameplay or now even having to say what platfrom version is being showed incase someone buys it for a lesser platform and it doesn't look as good..I am guessing someone sued when the graphics to the game they saw didn't match up,which is pretty much what is happening here

I am sure Gearbox/SEGA have the argument that the footage we saw at E3 2012 was work in progress,i am not sure from that side of the argument,not sure if they told people it was work in progress or the public were just to expect that it was work in progress

"So what" because it has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Maybe you should have a look at what this case is actually about, which is showing off a "demo" that it turns out has no relation to the game that is released, hyping up features that would never see the light of day?

So when game features get cut due to budget or publisher time constraints, the developers should be held legally liable because they promised or showed them off in a build at one point? I can see that if they list a feature on the box that isn't in the game (i.e. saying it has multiplayer when it doesn't, etc.), but to get sued because you promised something that didn't make the final cut or because the development team changed creative direction at some point seems pretty sketchy to me. Should we all retroactively sue Obsidian for cutting out the ending of KOTOR 2?

Every demo I've ever played stated that it is a "work in progress and not representative of the final product". (I never played the demo for this Aliens game, so maybe that wasn't there.) There were plenty of reviews that stated this game sucked. If consumers spent their money on it anyways, isn't that just a case of 'caveat emptor'?

So when game features get cut due to budget or publisher time constraints, the developers should be held legally liable because they promised or showed them off in a build at one point?

No, and that's not what happened in this case either. They built what pretty much was a separate product to show off at presentations, knowing that the engine wouldn't be capable of these things for the final game. Look, it's fine for Burger King to show off the ideal Whopper in their advertisements, one that is so perfectly set up that you'll never see anything like it when actually purchasing the thing, but it's something else if their advertisements show the burger containing major ingredients that are nowhere to be found in the one you get. Only games get away with this kind of crap, and it's about time it changed. Companies are getting better at developing their games in such a way that they can show off a "vertical slice" of the final game at presentations, and that's how it should be done. That's representative of the final product. What they shouldn't do is create a new level using a different engine spouting features that their developer boxes don't support, showing off features they have no idea if are ever going to work. Half-Life 2 did this, but Valve actually managed to deliver on their crazy promises. That doesn't make it okay, and there was a justified shitstorm at that time too when early code leaked and showed that the entire presentation was smoke and mirrors.

Quote

Every demo I've ever played stated that it is a "work in progress and not representative of the final product". (I never played the demo for this Aliens game, so maybe that wasn't there.) There were plenty of reviews that stated this game sucked. If consumers spent their money on it anyways, isn't that just a case of 'caveat emptor'?

It wasn't a playable demo. It was a carefully choreographed presentation because the whole thing would have broken apart if anyone got to actually play it. The game also had a review embargo/delivery to reviewers that prevented any reviews until after the game was released. You might think it's okay for companies to lie to potential customers in order to sell products they know are inferior to what's being promised. I don't, and I strongly doubt most other people do as well.

It wasn't a playable demo. It was a carefully choreographed presentation because the whole thing would have broken apart if anyone got to actually play it. The game also had a review embargo/delivery to reviewers that prevented any reviews until after the game was released. You might think it's okay for companies to lie to potential customers in order to sell products they know are inferior to what's being promised. I don't, and I strongly doubt most other people do as well.

The embargo thing is a frequent component in this industry. Many games arrive at your doorstep with only a few days (sometimes hours?!) before release. Games like Blood Dragon where the game is worthy, those games show up usually well in advance. Games like Colonial Marines show up the day before. When I started playing this and realized what was going on I took a day off of my regular job to power through it and the review so people would get adequate warning before they put their hard-earned cash on the table for it.

The thing that bothers me is that Randy and co KNEW that what they were presenting was not possible with the engine, timeline, or current in-production game. I feel sorry for the folks at Timegate who (other than their most recent failure of a shooter) have zero experience with shooters being handed a beloved franchise as sub-contractors but given absolutely no control over their own product. Entire levels were uncoupled and shuffled like a deck of cards (hence why the weapon unlocks are so mangled and ass backwards), major story elements were changed, canon ignored, etc. etc. but since Sega was still happy enough to throw money down the Gearbox hole (which was, from all accounts, promptly used to make Borderlands and Borderlands 2) the end product was never going to be close to the thing that we were shown at E3. I think him calling it "Actual gameplay" multiple times is what chafes my ass the most. They showed us a top-tier 360 game and delivered a bottom-rung original Xbox game.

I've played plenty of games that looked one way at E3 and came out completely changed at the end. The difference here is that those changes were shouted from the rooftops - this was slipped in under cover of night and set on fire like a bag of flaming dog shit on my porch.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. I'm not familiar with anything about this game or the demo, and the article was a little vague on what the actual issues were.

I still think this lawsuit is a slippery slope though. Using your hamburger example, a Whopper is not something that is in a constant state of creative development over a multiple year period. Games are, and are likely to change during the process as a result. At what checkpoint do we determine that developers are legally "locked in" when they show off a game and are then liable for monetary damages if they don't deliver as promised? How on earth could you define that?

It's one thing for publishers and developers to be publicly shamed by the press for being dishonest dickbags about their games. I'm fully in support of that and think it should probably happen more often when games wildly overpromise and completely underdeliver. Being open for lawsuits because of it, however, seems to be a bit over the top. Just IMHO...

What consequence would you suggest they face, when they knowingly defraud the public?

If you were to go into a car showroom, and for them to show you video of the car you're standing in front of performing great feats, and then making the purchase of the car a closed transaction (no back-out) and no trial, only to find out that the car video was all CGI, how would you feel?

Swindled would be the word. If there was a "concept" video, or a "demo only, may not represent the final product" then yes, they'd be fine. As I understand it, this is simply comeuppance for selling a bill of goods.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

"So what" because it has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Maybe you should have a look at what this case is actually about, which is showing off a "demo" that it turns out has no relation to the game that is released, hyping up features that would never see the light of day?

Again...so what. It was a demo...a preview of an unfinished game. There's is no guarantee that what is shown in some demo months or maybe years before release will ever happen. This is normal and you all know it, or you should. People keep saying that Gearbox knew they couldn't do this. othese people have some taped conversation of Randy literally saying this? No they show a E3 demo then say look at the final game. Its not the same thing man! Sue them! LOlz...

So yes this lawsuit is stupid, and a waste of taxpayers money it will cost to litigate it.

I think part of the problem is that almost all games shown at E3 are shown in a barely-working way. There is tons of smoke and mirrors, throw away work and duct tape holding things together in that crunch to get a demo ready for a trade show with a game that is still in production. And no producer or media person is going to tell you that the feature they are touting hasn't even been started yet, or that the level they're showing off was specially made for that scripted demo, or the million other things that still need to be done before the game ships.

Differentiating that "normal" process from what Gearbox/Sega did is going to be problematic and potentially have a huge impact on the industry.

I think part of the problem is that almost all games shown at E3 are shown in a barely-working way. There is tons of smoke and mirrors, throw away work and duct tape holding things together in that crunch to get a demo ready for a trade show with a game that is still in production. And no producer or media person is going to tell you that the feature they are touting hasn't even been started yet, or that the level they're showing off was specially made for that scripted demo, or the million other things that still need to be done before the game ships.

Differentiating that "normal" process from what Gearbox/Sega did is going to be problematic and potentially have a huge impact on the industry.

This is basically what I was trying to say...EngineNo9 articulated it better than I did.

It wasn't a playable demo. It was a carefully choreographed presentation because the whole thing would have broken apart if anyone got to actually play it. The game also had a review embargo/delivery to reviewers that prevented any reviews until after the game was released. You might think it's okay for companies to lie to potential customers in order to sell products they know are inferior to what's being promised. I don't, and I strongly doubt most other people do as well.

The embargo thing is a frequent component in this industry. Many games arrive at your doorstep with only a few days (sometimes hours?!) before release. Games like Blood Dragon where the game is worthy, those games show up usually well in advance. Games like Colonial Marines show up the day before. When I started playing this and realized what was going on I took a day off of my regular job to power through it and the review so people would get adequate warning before they put their hard-earned cash on the table for it.

The thing that bothers me is that Randy and co KNEW that what they were presenting was not possible with the engine, timeline, or current in-production game. I feel sorry for the folks at Timegate who (other than their most recent failure of a shooter) have zero experience with shooters being handed a beloved franchise as sub-contractors but given absolutely no control over their own product. Entire levels were uncoupled and shuffled like a deck of cards (hence why the weapon unlocks are so mangled and ass backwards), major story elements were changed, canon ignored, etc. etc. but since Sega was still happy enough to throw money down the Gearbox hole (which was, from all accounts, promptly used to make Borderlands and Borderlands 2) the end product was never going to be close to the thing that we were shown at E3. I think him calling it "Actual gameplay" multiple times is what chafes my ass the most. They showed us a top-tier 360 game and delivered a bottom-rung original Xbox game.

I've played plenty of games that looked one way at E3 and came out completely changed at the end. The difference here is that those changes were shouted from the rooftops - this was slipped in under cover of night and set on fire like a bag of flaming dog shit on my porch.

I see your point. However, holding developers and publishers responsible for the disparity between a demo and finished product is a slippery slope. The consumers simply needed to wait ONE HOUR after release to learn the disappointing truth about the gameplay. Reviews were flying around minutes after the embargo lifted. And you need to admit, the rumor mill was already swirling with talk about the game being a train wreck. In my opinion this is a frivolous lawsuit. Sega suing Gearbox....that might have some merit, if they took funds for Aliens and siphoned those off to Borderlands.

The potential increased litigation risk and costs to honest developers if this case is won outweighs the potential benefits the consumer will obtain in any remedy. I don't want the gaming industry exposed to idiots like this:

"FOOTLONG" is a trademark name, it doesn't have to be 12" - this is spurious, though it would be interesting to see who wins. Thing is, HE can see the size of his sandwich before he pays for it, and there is no requirement for Subway to provide it.

Don't tell them about 2x4's not being 2" x 4" ... yeesh.

Were this wiener to go and arrange to purchase a sub, and determined it didn't measure up, he is under no obligation. Software purchases are different.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

The important thing to prove here is whether consumers felt deceived by their advertising practices. And a press demo is a form of advertising.

For most developers out there, even if they create a false, CGI based demo, or at least an interactive, highly scripted one, they're not trying to outright deceive the press and consumer base. Look at the Killzone 2 video-as-live-demo -- the final product actually turned out pretty close to the falsified CGI video that posed as actual gameplay. Was it kinda shady? Yeah. But it was at least representative of the final product. Same with Bioshock Infinite. Sure, certain features changed, or didn't make it in, but the art style, graphical quality, and general gameplay features were all (mostly) present and accounted for. I highly doubt that there was a large amount of people who were pissed that the final Bioshock Infinite game they got was somewhat different than the one they saw three years prior.

The problem with the Aliens demo is that 1) the graphical quality of the demo is vastly superior from what we got on the retail disc (despite numerous screenshots that seemingly proved otherwise) and 2) AI and gameplay features were conspicuously absent from the final product (the aliens did NOT act like they did in that hands-off demo at E3, among other things that were missing). Sure, levels get shifted around, certain promised features don't ship (or are greatly changed) due to play testing and iteration, but to have fundamental things like graphics and AI to be drastically different is a problem endemic of a much larger issue. Why would your demo look so goddamn amazing, your aliens react so realistically, then when you finally pick up the retail game, you have derpy aliens and the game looks no better (and in some ways, worse) than an original Xbox game?

Sure, stuff changes from target demos and carefully controlled hands-on previews. But many other games have numerous preview events (especially leading up to the weeks before release) and they let the press actually PLAY these demos. The fact that the only gameplay footage we saw from Aliens: Colonial Marines was that fake E3 gameplay demo is incredibly deceptive. People saw this demo, saw how amazing it was, and pre-ordered the game (or purchased it on launch without having read reviews). When they got the game, it was something far, far worse than what they were told. This is a classic "bait-and-switch."

Wikipedia states (I realize that this isn't a legal definition in the slightest, but it's easy to understand) that "[w]hat is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision." A falsified demo meant to drum up pre-orders, when all parties involved in the creation of said demo know that the actual retail game looks and plays NOTHING like it is an example of false advertising, and is considered illegal.

I think this is a particularly important case. We as consumers have rights -- rights that should protect us from false advertising. Obvious bullshots, one hands-off demo (and some brief multiplayer sessions) that was obviously scripted is absurd. We do have the ability to make decisions based off reviews, and nothing should protect us from bad games (as purchasing those games, like movies, is of our own volition). But, when we are surrounded with messages harassing us to "Pre-order now!" and we make that purchasing decision based off a demo that isn't even indicative in the slightest of the final product -- the people involved should be held accountable.

TL;DR: We were sold snake oil in video game form, and we deserve better than that.

But, when we are surrounded with messages harassing us to "Pre-order now!" and we make that purchasing decision based off a demo that isn't even indicative in the slightest of the final product -- the people involved should be held accountable.

Held accountable for people's bad puchasing decisions? Last I checked, no one was holding a gun to anyone's head requiring them to pre-order something.

To me, this whole fiasco simply reinforces the fact that we should become smarter consumers and wait to see what a final product is before plunking our cash down for it. Being pissed off about it is fine. But unless gamers never want to see another game demo (because the publisher could be held legally liable if it changes by final release time), we may want to rethink the lawsuit angle.

Held accountable for people's bad puchasing decisions? Last I checked, no one was holding a gun to anyone's head requiring them to pre-order something.

Is that what it would take in your world for a game to be considered to have false advertising, or are you maybe just making a point that isn't relevant to the discussion?

You and I obviously aren't going to agree on this one:

- You think it's blatant false advertising and the developers should be held legally liable (side note: to whom are they liable? People who bought the game? The publisher? A particular individual? Just curious what your thoughts are.)- I think it was an E3 demo cobbled together from half-baked ideas early in the creative process, oversold by the developers (like they all do), and that people should have waited to see reviews before purchasing the final product. I also think it sets a very damaging precedent for the rest of the industry if the lawsuit wins. Why would publishers ever release another demo/preview video/etc. if they could potentially be sued over it?

So was this misleading demo ever used again after E3? Was the same demo released to the public? Did all the marketing materials, advertising, screen shots, video previews, etc. reference back to this particular demo, or was this a one-off thing created for E3 then shelved? Asking because I honestly have no idea.

So was this misleading demo ever used again after E3? Was the same demo released to the public? Did all the marketing materials, advertising, screen shots, video previews, etc. reference back to this particular demo, or was this a one-off thing created for E3 then shelved? Asking because I honestly have no idea.

Without taking a stance on the merits of the lawsuit, I can say that yes, advertisements for Colonial Marines were using footage from the E3 demo rather than the actual game for weeks after the game's release. Here's an article about the UK's Advertising Standards Authority addressing the issue, and I personally saw my share of ads here in the US.

So was this misleading demo ever used again after E3? Was the same demo released to the public? Did all the marketing materials, advertising, screen shots, video previews, etc. reference back to this particular demo, or was this a one-off thing created for E3 then shelved? Asking because I honestly have no idea.

Without taking a stance on the merits of the lawsuit, I can say that yes, advertisements for Colonial Marines were using footage from the E3 demo rather than the actual game for weeks after the game's release. Here's an article about the UK's Advertising Standards Authority addressing the issue, and I personally saw my share of ads here in the US.

-Autistic Angel

Thanks. That makes this far more of an issue then. I was under the impression that this was a one-time demo used at E3. If they still continued to use it post-release, then yes, I'd agree that's a significant problem.

So was this misleading demo ever used again after E3? Was the same demo released to the public? Did all the marketing materials, advertising, screen shots, video previews, etc. reference back to this particular demo, or was this a one-off thing created for E3 then shelved? Asking because I honestly have no idea.

Without taking a stance on the merits of the lawsuit, I can say that yes, advertisements for Colonial Marines were using footage from the E3 demo rather than the actual game for weeks after the game's release. Here's an article about the UK's Advertising Standards Authority addressing the issue, and I personally saw my share of ads here in the US.

-Autistic Angel

Thanks. That makes this far more of an issue then. I was under the impression that this was a one-time demo used at E3. If they still continued to use it post-release, then yes, I'd agree that's a significant problem.

Not only that, they were using HEAVILY doctored screenshots and sending those out to publishers.